NCAA tournament expansion: The pros and cons of a 96-team field

The news that the NCAA may expand the men’s basketball tournament was first reported 10 days ago by the SportsBusiness Journal and has spread rapidly, leaving a mix of joy, frustration and bafflement in its wake.

They’re meddling with March Madness!

They’re messing with our brackets!

Officially, the governing body of college sports says that a “series of ongoing dialogues” have taken place.” But they are well past the chit-chat stage, folks.

Behind the scenes, NCAA officials are speeding ahead with their plan to expand the 65-team field to include as many as 96 teams. They’re briefing conference commissioners; they’re talking to television executives; they’re researching and modeling and projecting …

None of this means tournament expansion is a lock, especially for the 2011 event, but it’s a very real possibility — far more real, for instance, than a football playoff.

The basketball coaches have been clamoring for expansion for years because tournament participation equates to job security. But why would the NCAA move on the issue now, with three years left on its $6 billion contract with CBS?

Because it has the right to opt out of the deal this spring and seek a bigger payday.

A bigger payday probably would require more broadcast opportunities, and more broadcast opportunities would require expansion.

(SportsBusiness Journal reported that CBS and Turner Sports were considering a joint bid on a 14-year deal. Fox and ESPN are seen as potential bidders, as well.)

The working proposal involves the NCAA tournament swallowing the 32-team NIT and adding one round of play in a manner that doesn’t lengthen the event – we’re probably talking about games on the Tuesday/Wednesday of the second week.

The top-32 teams would receive first-round byes. The other 64 would play to produce 32 winners, and from there it would be business as usual in the four regions.

(bullet) How would school presidents justify adding travel when missed class time is one of their primary objections to a football playoff?

(bullet) Who makes the final call on expansion? The NCAA has an interim boss, Jim Isch, while it searches for a replacement for Myles Brand. Would they really let a short-timer sign off on monumental change?

(bullet) Above all, how would the tournament’s massive television revenue – the lifeblood of most major college athletic departments – get distributed under the new contract?

It’s hard to envision a scenario in which the six power conferences endorse an expansion plan that results in them receiving a smaller share of the revenue pie. (The word “magnanimity” isn’t in their dictionary, much less their vocabulary.)

Does that mean the so-called mid-major conferences, like the West Coast and Missouri Valley, would send more teams to the tournament but receive less money? Would there be any guarantee that they’d send more teams?

“Philosophically, access is a good thing,’’ WCC commissioner Jamie Zaninovich said. “There’s an old saying that you can play your way into a better seed, but you can’t play your way into the tournament.

“But there are a lot of unanswered questions, such as the selection process and the financial model. Does unlocking more television opportunities get you more value or less?’’

While Zaninovich is cautious but curious, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott is downright skeptical.

“It’s always tempting to go for short-term economic gain, but it’s very hard to go backwards,’’ Scott said. “You run the risk of potentially harming something that is so special.

“I’d be concerned long-term about the devaluation of the tournament, making it more of a commodity that’s too easy to qualify for.’’

Expansion proponents argue that while March Madness has held its size over the past quarter century, the number of Division I basketball teams has grown to nearly 350 — only 18 percent participate in the NCAAs (and nine percent more in the NIT).

Compare that with college football, they say, where more than half the major college teams play in bowl games.

But expansion critics counter that the mere mention of the bowl system ought to make NCAA tournament honchos quash all talk of a 96-team field.

Why take the best postseason in sports, they argue, and make it more like the worst?

Early version of a column I wrote for Thursday’s Merc …

The news that the NCAA may expand the men’s basketball tournament was first reported 10 days ago by the SportsBusiness Journal and has spread rapidly, leaving a mix of joy, frustration and bafflement in its wake.

They’re meddling with March Madness!

They’re messing with our brackets!

Officially, the governing body of college sports says that a “series of ongoing dialogues” have taken place.” But they are well past the chit-chat stage, folks.

Behind the scenes, NCAA officials are speeding ahead with their plan to expand the 65-team field to include as many as 96 teams. They’re briefing conference commissioners; they’re talking to television executives; they’re researching and modeling and projecting …

None of this means tournament expansion is a lock, especially for the 2011 event, but it’s a very real possibility — far more real, for instance, than a football playoff.

The basketball coaches have been clamoring for expansion for years because tournament participation equates to job security. But why would the NCAA move on the issue now, with three years left on its $6 billion contract with CBS?

Because it has the right to opt out of the deal this spring and seek a bigger payday.

A bigger payday probably would require more broadcast opportunities, and more broadcast opportunities would require expansion.

(SportsBusiness Journal reported that CBS and Turner Sports were considering a joint bid on a 14-year deal. Fox and ESPN are seen as potential bidders, as well.)

The working proposal involves the NCAA tournament swallowing the 32-team NIT and adding one round of play in a manner that doesn’t lengthen the event – we’re probably talking about games on the Tuesday/Wednesday of the second week.

The top-32 teams would receive first-round byes. The other 64 would play to produce 32 winners, and from there it would be business as usual in the four regions.

* How would school presidents justify adding travel when missed class time is one of their primary objections to a football playoff?

* Who makes the final call on expansion? The NCAA has an interim boss, Jim Isch, while it searches for a replacement for Myles Brand. Would they really let a short-timer sign off on monumental change?

* Above all, how would the tournament’s massive television revenue – the lifeblood of most major college athletic departments – get distributed under the new contract?

It’s hard to envision a scenario in which the six power conferences endorse an expansion plan that results in them receiving a smaller share of the revenue pie. (The word “magnanimity” isn’t in their dictionary, much less their vocabulary.)

Does that mean the so-called mid-major conferences, like the West Coast and Missouri Valley, would send more teams to the tournament but receive less money? Would there be any guarantee that they’d send more teams?

“Philosophically, access is a good thing,’’ WCC commissioner Jamie Zaninovich said. “There’s an old saying that you can play your way into a better seed, but you can’t play your way into the tournament.

“But there are a lot of unanswered questions, such as the selection process and the financial model. Does unlocking more television opportunities get you more value or less?’’

While Zaninovich is cautious but curious, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott is downright skeptical.

“It’s always tempting to go for short-term economic gain, but it’s very hard to go backwards,’’ Scott said. “You run the risk of potentially harming something that is so special.

“I’d be concerned long-term about the devaluation of the tournament, making it more of a commodity that’s too easy to qualify for.’’

Expansion proponents argue that while March Madness has held its size over the past quarter century, the number of Division I basketball teams has grown to nearly 350 — only 18 percent participate in the NCAAs (and nine percent more in the NIT).

Compare that with college football, they say, where more than half the major college teams play in bowl games.

But expansion critics counter that the mere mention of the bowl system ought to make NCAA tournament honchos quash all talk of a 96-team field.

Why take the best postseason in sports, they argue, and make it more like the worst?